Re: Active vs. Passive: An attempt by me to explain

Originally Posted by ejschultz

The DLS A5 is a 2+1 channel amp so not with that one. The A2 is a 2 channel amp so no with that one either. The Arc KS500.1 is a mono amp so no luck with that one either. Now, the KS 300.4 is a 4 channel, so yes, you could potentially do it with that one. You would either need 2 2 channel amps or a single 4 channel amp with an active capable head unit or sound processor.

For a 2-way front, generally, yes. If you need more powa, bridging is always nice, but will need more channels of amplification to do so. Bridging will also give the benefit to balance L/R separately if you don't already have the processing to do so.

For a simple 2-way front + sub, you will need a 3-way xover (2-way front + sub = 3!). and no, the quantity of highs, mids or lows will not cause you to need more than a 3-way xover. ie. tweet, mids, and two or mor subs will still just need a 3-way xover.

Re: Active vs. Passive: An attempt by me to explain

Originally Posted by krainium

Where does he say mono amp. I think he means one 2 channel amp bridged per speaker.

For some reason one amp per speaker made me conclude he was referring to a mono amp, probably because I saw one and my mind turned that into mono. Bridging a 2 channel amp for each speaker would definitely work, as long as the speakers could take the power. You could also use a head unit that will let you take full control of each speaker seperately. This could potentially give you the same controls with a single 4 channel amp that four 2 channel amps would provide.

Re: Active vs. Passive: An attempt by me to explain

Originally Posted by ejschultz

For some reason one amp per speaker made me conclude he was referring to a mono amp, probably because I saw one and my mind turned that into mono. Bridging a 2 channel amp for each speaker would definitely work, as long as the speakers could take the power. You could also use a head unit that will let you take full control of each speaker seperately. This could potentially give you the same controls with a single 4 channel amp that four 2 channel amps would provide.

noooo sheeeeeat

4 two channels will always > 1 4 channel on matter what processing you have, but it won't have anything to do with active xovers, which this thread is about.

Re: Active vs. Passive: An attempt by me to explain

4 two channels will always > 1 4 channel on matter what processing you have, but it won't have anything to do with active xovers, which this thread is about.

I would think the only reason they would be better is because you'd be able to get more power out of them. As far as processing goes, with my hu I'm able to fully tailor each speaker independently. I can use my 16 band graphic eq for left and right, in network mode (3 way active) I can control time alignment, level, and crossover point and slope for each individual speaker. What more could using four 2 channel amps do other than provide more power?

Re: Active vs. Passive: An attempt by me to explain

Originally Posted by James Bang

stereo separation for the fancy folks.

Stereo separation seems very possible just by using the time alignment correctly to place yourself directly in the "middle" of the speakers. I don't see how stereo separation can be better just by using four 2 channel amps. As long as you're in the middle or have the time alignment set correctly, you should get proper stereo separation.

Re: Active vs. Passive: An attempt by me to explain

Originally Posted by ejschultz

The DLS A5 is a 2+1 channel amp so not with that one. The A2 is a 2 channel amp so no with that one either. The Arc KS500.1 is a mono amp so no luck with that one either. Now, the KS 300.4 is a 4 channel, so yes, you could potentially do it with that one. You would either need 2 2 channel amps or a single 4 channel amp with an active capable head unit or sound processor.

OK....so I'll go with the KS300.4 for the front. My HU has a high pass and low pass (sub) xover built in.

Re: Active vs. Passive: An attempt by me to explain

2 channel and 4 channel amps have "crosstalk." It's near impossible for those amps to have channels that are 100&#37; purely separated. Some amps, like the old Eclipse amps had separated their channels 100% which is why they are still popular these days.

Re: Active vs. Passive: An attempt by me to explain

ive been out of the stereo scene for a very long time.at least 20 yrs......soo i need some help...
im just about done with a 60 impala..been working on it for 5 yrs now..
ive got several older zapco amps..studios and compititions..
im just about ready to buy a head unit,speakers,processor/crossovers?
it sounds like active is the best sq?

can someone give me some tips on a good deck/processor that handles the active process?
i was leaning tword an eclipse 7200?
6 pre outs..no power...8 volts..and i think it has built in crossovers?
not sure if this is the right direction..
i hate to spend over 500.00 on a hu
focal k2 or morels ..or maybe dls...for speakers???
like i said i just dont have the exp or knowledge to buy the right combination of speakres,deck,?
anyone avail in the bayarea that does quality installs?
p.m. me
heres what ive got for amps..
1 studio 500
1 z600c2-sl
1 z400c4-sl
3 z300c2-slx
1 z300c2